On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 03:59:36PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 10:09:04AM +0200, Oliver Bandel wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 03:41:49PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > OK, but why should we eliminate a useful function because 1% of uses
> > > of it will be slow?
> > >
> > > Make a note in the docs (like that notes that are there already that say
> > > "this function is not tail-recursive") and put it in for those that will
> > > find it useful.
> >
> >
> > What does the O()-notation have to do with tail recursiveness?
> > IMHO nothing. But I'm not a computer scientist. Maybe there
> > is a linkage between. But the O()-notation says something about the
>
> What I'm saying is this: a known problem with a function, whether it is
> excessive stack use or slow performance, is not necessarily a reason to
> keep it out of the standard library. The flaw should be noted in the
> documentation. And that's just what has been done with the
> non-tail-recursive functions.
OK, I see and I agree with that.
Nevertheless everybody is interested to have best stuff inside
the lib, which is possible.
Ciao,
Oliver
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners